how low does the FPS have to be to make a noticeable difference?

so does this confirm that ign is full of shit

depends on how many you are used to, but under 28 for me its pretty bad.. I notice it right away..

Probably, as their results seem very inconsistent and illogical.

well i watched video clip 1 part,and 360 version average FPS can't be 20.00,are they wanna say"30.00" but typo...?

I was going to say, usually it is very noticable when it hits low 20s. 

For the average person it ranges from 22-25. Unfortunately anything under 30fps is very bothersome to me. If its a fast moving scene then under 35fps can even be a problem.

Because of this I had to go and buy one of those 200HZ Motionflow TV's. The 100Hz Trumotion TV's actually generate a frame and inserts it in between every frame coming from the signal. Pretty amazing eh. Motionflow 1up's this by inserting a black frame before and after each generated frame and thereby eliminates the blur effect that some of you might know.

looks like i'm right

they fixed clip 1(360) to 30.70

So what do you guys prefer: 2.5fps more, or 1.93 less teared frames?

I'm going to say I'd rather lose a few fps. I'm really sensitive to that, but for me frame tearing = super irritation.

I have to say that its still small enough to probably not be very noticible.

When will Digital Foundry do their comparison?